Is Jesus God or a god?

[Shazard]

Hi Sparkey,

O.K. However your fairy tale computer still doesn't correspond to the trinity doctrine. All three computer persons exist on the computer , so this is simply a variation of modalism.. But the trinity doctrine says all three persons are fully distinct[ in other words each of your computer persons must be fully computer in every sense yet be totally distinct and independent , yet be one computer and not three computers.] In other words 3 would have to be 1.

best wishes,

You are fighting straw man. You even don't understand how trinity is understood.

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response.

Hi Paul,

Neither did Jesus equate himself with God . By the way, just like Moses, at the end of the day Jesus was just a man, a created being, who died.

Did Moses become God when God made him God in Ex. 7:1? Ofcourse not. You're twisting the meaning of "equal". As I mentioned earlier , the concept of people being “equal” is found in several places in the Bible. For example, when Joseph was ruling Egypt under Pharaoh, Judah said to him, “You are equal to Pharaoh himself” (Gen. 44:18). Paul wrote about men who wanted to be considered “equal with us” (2 Cor. 11:12).

Do you believe Joseph and Pharaoh or Paul and his opponents are “of one substance,” and make up “one being” simply because they are called “equal.” ? YES or NO?

best wishes,

best wishes,

As I can see, still up to your old tricks. Your question was something to do with comparing Moses and Christ. My response was clear cut and asked that you inquire with your buddies over on the Jewish threads if Moses was/is equal to God. Did you do that, no, you just respond with a question. Why did you do that? Was it because you already knew the answer?

Your denial of who Christ is nothing more than the same old story that was the reason the Jews killed Christ. Your comparison of Christ, the Son of the Living God to “mere men” is the same error that led to the cross.

The Jews didn’t suggest Christ was equal to Caesar, Herod or the High Priest, they, His accusers said He was claiming to be God.

No, I don’t believe Pharaoh, Joseph, Paul or his opponents are of the same essence as God, they are finite created beings, but then neither were they THE Son of the Living God.

Now, that I’ve answered your question, when can I expect your response regarding your inquiry with the Jews? Do the Jews consider Moses equal with God?

Hi Paul,

P.S. I'm not holding my breath for a straight answer because trinitarians never comply with a yes or no. That's how I know their doctrine is from the evil one. Jesus says in the bible, "Let your yes be your yes and your no be your no, otherwise it is from the evil one."

Still taking stuff out of context, eh? Oh well, what you have demonstrated in the past and maintained here is the penchant for answering a question with another question. Your inability to answer the question is deafening. I will pray that God opens your eyes to the truth and that your reformation doesn’t just end with your method of discourse but that you come to realize who Christ is, and bow to the truth in similar fashion as Thomas who said, “My Lord and my God”.

Regards,

Paul

[PaulT]

Pythagoras,

Thank you for the response

Hi Paul,

Answer my question: Was Christ a human being like us? Yes or No?

Starting this all over again I see. I have answered the question, see post #98. Why don’t you do me the courtesy and answer all the questions you’ve failed to address from post #98.

Regards,

Paul

[A Cup of No]

To keep it simple. You believe that Jesus is YHVH which also makes Jesus the Father and not just the Son. This appears to be in contradiction to the Trinity you support.

Just to address this bold-faced misinterpretation of Sparko's words:

YHWH does not equal "Father." This passage from Zechariah should demonstrate this well:

Zechariah 2:6-12

6Up! Up! Flee from the land of the north, declares the LORD. For I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heavens, declares the LORD. 7Up! Escape to Zion, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylon. 8For thus said the LORD of hosts, after his glory sent me[b] to the nations who plundered you, for he who touches you touches the apple of his eye: 9"Behold, I will shake my hand over them, and they shall become plunder for those who served them. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me. 10Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion, for behold, I come and I will dwell in your midst, declares the LORD. 11And many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people. And I will dwell in your midst, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. 12And the LORD will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem."

Notice the bold text. The LORD (as I'm sure you already know is truly YHWH in the Hebrew) is speaking this entire time, and says that He will come and dwell with the people, and they will know that YHWH has sent him. YHWH is sending YHWH. The Father cannot send himself, so it is impossible to say YHWH = Father.

Also consider these passages:

Isaiah 45:23

By myself I have sworn;
from my mouth has gone out in righteousness
a word that shall not return:
'To me every knee shall bow,
every tongue shall swear allegiance.'

YHWH here is speaking. In Phillipians, Paul expounds on this passage. Earlier stating that Jesus, already being God, did not consider it something to be used to his advantage, but rather used it as a means to serve humanity,Paul then says :

Phillipians 2:9-11

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In Isaiah all were bowing to YHWH, and in Phillipians all are bowing to Jesus. By giving Jesus the "name at which every knee should bow", YHWH, the Father, is bestowing the name of YHWH to Jesus, which we saw was true of him already in Zechariah. Christ, though already in the form of God, gave himself to servanthood, and now God has exalted him and put him back where he belongs with the name that is properly his.

This exaltation language is from Isaiah.

Isaiah 52:13-14"

Behold, my servant shall act wisely, he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astroned at you - his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind - so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.

The servant who has the name of YHWH is Jesus, sharing the name of the Father, but now bestowed on him solely for the purpose of judging all men.

Also note Isaiah 6

Isaiah 6:3

And one called to another and said: Holy, holy, holy is the LORD [YHWH] of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!"

John 12:41

John 12:41

Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him."

Isaiah saw YHWH's glory, and John says that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory. In Zecharaiah, YHWH is sending YHWH to dwell with his people. It should be obvious that YHWH does not equal solely the Father, and is used as a name for different members of the Godhead.

[Sparko]

Hi Sparkey,




O.K. However your fairy tale computer still doesn't correspond to the trinity doctrine. All three computer persons exist on the computer , so this is simply a variation of modalism.. But the trinity doctrine says all three persons are fully distinct[ in other words each of your computer persons must be fully computer in every sense yet be totally distinct and independent , yet be one computer and not three computers.] In other words 3 would have to be 1.

best wishes,

bzzt wrong again. See, this is why you don't understand the trinity, you keep mixing up "person" and "being"

Maybe it would be clearer if we didn't even use the word "being" in reference to the trinity? Let's use "essence" - God is three persons with one essense or nature. Distinct means they are not the SAME person, not that they are completely independent of each other. The word "distinct" is only added to the trinitarian definitions to delineate it from modalism which says that God takes on roles, that he is the Father for a while, then becomes the Son, then becomes the Holy Spirit. In Modalism there is only one person at a time who changes personalities. In Trinitarianism, there are three persons who exist simultaneously with each other and yet are one essence or nature.

In my example, there are three distinct computer persons, hewey, dewey, and louie. Yet each is fully of the essence "computer" - there is only one piece of hardware, the computer that each has full control over. The computer is their essence, it is their nature. Yet in my example there is only ONE computer, not three. Three persons, one computer. Each exists simultaneous with the others.

And yeah its NOT a perfect analogy. The only purpose of it is to explain to you how there can be three in one, not to be a complete model of the trinity. I am sure you can find many holes in it. Why not complain that God is not made of silicon? Or that the computer is not infinite or all powerful like God is?

I always get a laugh when someone tries to destroy an analogy by trying to find some area where the analogy fails thinking that destroys the whole point of the analogy. An analogy is just meant to be a simple example of something at one or two points, not a complete one-to-one model of the thing under discussion.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparko,

Maybe it would be clearer if we didn't even use the word "being" in reference to the trinity?

Lol! fine.

Let's use "essence" - God is three persons with one essense or nature.

O.K. So you have three persons(distinct things), A , B and C with the same nature(or essence).

Distinct means they are not the SAME person, not that they are completely independent of each other.

Here you start equivocating. If they are not completely independent of each other, then they are not distinct or separate persons.

The word "distinct" is only added to the trinitarian definitions to delineate it from modalism which says that God takes on roles, that he is the Father for a while, then becomes the Son, then becomes the Holy Spirit.

Fine.

In Modalism there is only one person at a time who changes personalities.

Yes.

In Trinitarianism, there are three persons who exist simultaneously with each other and yet are one essence or nature.

Yes.

In my example, there are three distinct computer persons, hewey, dewey, and louie.

Sure. I prefer to call them Petrer, Paul and James.

Yet each is fully of the essence "computer" - there is only one piece of hardware, the computer that each has full control over.

If they aretruly distinct then there has to be more than one computer. Gregory of Nyssa saw this problem . Your trinity is basically semi-modalism because it compromises the distinctino between the three persons. Gregory would argue the three persons of the trinity are distinct as threemen are, but having the same human nature. Anything less than this is not true distinctino between the persons unfortunately.

The computer is their essence, it is their nature.

If they are truely distinct , The computer , their essence, should be able to be divisible by threeyet be one, just as three persons are three, yet their essence(human nature) is one..Otherwise you're arguing a variation of modalism. Can't you follow simple logic?

Yet in my example there is only ONE computer, not three.

and that's why you're not arguing the trinity doctrine, but avariation of modalism.

Three persons, one computer. Each exists simultaneous with the others.

If each exists simultaneoulsy within the other, then your have a quarterny.

And yeah its NOT a perfect analogy.

And that says it all.

Even in Narnia land your fantasy fails. That should clue you in.

anyway, I've got to run. If there are spelling errors, I apologize.


best wishes, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.


best wishes,

[Sparko]

Hi Sparko,






Nice try! You're trying to equate "Alpha and Omega" with "First and Last".
The phrase, “the First and the Last,” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (44:6; 48:12) and three times in Revelation of the Son (1:17; 2:8; 22:13). You're making the assumption that since the same title applies to both the Father and the son, they must both be God. However, many same titles are used for God, Christ and men. Examples include “Lord” (Rom. 10:9) and “Savior” (see Luke 1:47) and “King of kings” (see 1 Tim. 6:14-16) , etc . I guess they are all God right.

Jesus call himself "the first and the last"? Yes, but in a different context and a different sense. He told John: "Fear not; I am the first and the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades." (Rev. 1:17-1 Jesus was raised from death to immortal life directly by his Father. But if Jesus now has "the keys of death and of Hades," he will perform any subsequent resurrections.





As far as "Alpha and Omega" at Revelation 22:12-13 the speaker here is, not Jesus, but the Father. But some like Sparkey will insist that the Alpha and Omega here is really Jesus. Why? For one thing, Jesus is clearly the speaker a few verses later. ("I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things for the churches." - verse 16) The problem is, there are no quotation marks in the original to indicate where one quotation begins and another ends. Some translations will indicate the above statements to be separate quotations and others won't. Does not the speaker say he is 'coming quiclky'? Is that not Jesus? In fact, Jesus uses those very words in verse 20. Yes, but in the book of Revelation, not only does Jesus come (a second time - Rev. 19:11), but the Father comes down to earth in New Jerusalem. (21:2-3)


best wishes,

1. What the heck are you doing to screw up your text so badly all the time? Cutting and pasting from some web site and not taking out the html codes?

2. Can you show me where "alpha and omega" are used as titles for Moses or any other man?

3. The Father is not "coming soon" - Christ is. God doesn't set new Jerusalem down on earth till a thousand years AFTER Christ returns to set up his kingdom.

Pythagoras, your silly rationalizations and attempts at handwaving all trinitarian evidence away show that you are not interested in knowing the truth, but just want to force all evidence into the belief you already hold. A truly honest Christian would want to know the truth about God's nature even if it disagreed with what they currently believe.

You instead do this: :fingersinears:


If God was not a trinity, I want to know that. I don't want to believe falsely about who God is. I do keep checking the bible and considering things you and other nontrinitarians say and I keep seeing people who don't really think about what the bible teaches but who keep trying to fit what they beleive into the bible. Instead of letting the bible teach you what the truth is, you guys already have your mind made up and force that back into the bible and use any silly rationalization to handwave away clear passages in the bible that say Jesus is God.

When I stand before God, I can, with a clear conscience tell God that I believe that Jesus is God because the bible clearly teaches that. If God were to tell me that I was wrong and the Trinity was not true, I could honestly tell him that I only went by what was clear in the bible. If he didn't want me to believe Jesus was God, he shouldn't have let it be said so many times and in so many ways in the bible.

You on the other hand, and many other arians, will have to explain to God why you ignored clear passages that say Jesus is God in favor of keeping your own preconceptions alive at the expense of clear teachings in the bible.


Will you pray for God to show you the truth about his nature, even if it turns out that the trinity is true, pythagoras? And will you keep an open mind so God can reveal the truth to you whichever way it goes?

[Sparko]

O.K. So you have three persons(distinct things), A , B and C with the same nature(or essence).




Here you start equivocating. If they are not completely independent of each other, then they are not distinct or separate persons.

Trinitarians never say they are "separate" persons. They use "distinct" for a reason.

If they aretruly distinct then there has to be more than one computer. Gregory of Nyssa saw this problem . Your trinity is basically semi-modalism because it compromises the distinctino between the three persons. Gregory would argue the three persons of the trinity are distinct as threemen are, but having the same human nature. Anything less than this is not true distinctino between the persons unfortunately.

No. if they can be three distinct persons on one computer. Say one was Max Headroom and one was Hal9000. Both on the same computer. They would be distinct persons. each would have a mind, and personality.

You try too hard to destroy a simple analogy and still get it wrong. In doing so you show you are either ignorant or dishonest. I am voting for ignorant. You just want arianism to be true so badly that you will ignore any contrary evidence in the bible. You can't even understand a simple analogy without messing it up.

If they are truely distinct , The computer , their essence, should be able to be divisible by threeyet be one, just as three persons are three, yet their essence(human nature) is one..Otherwise you're arguing a variation of modalism. Can't you follow simple logic?

Hewey is fully the computer in essence. All of the hardware of the computer makes up and runs Hewey. But Hewey is not Dewey or Louie. Ditto for the other two persons. Each is fully the computer. The computer is not fully each of them.

and that's why you're not arguing the trinity doctrine, but avariation of modalism.

Bzzt.

If each exists simultaneoulsy within the other, then your have a quarterny.

Bzzt. The computer is not a fourth person. It is the essence of the three persons. The nature of them. Are you two persons Pythagoras? You have a mind in a body. does that make you two persons?

[Topherlee]

Sparko, Again you show your lack of understanding of the Trinity. One God revealed in three persons. Yes each person in the trinity can talk to the others, not they are not three Gods.

Can you hear yourself? EACH PERSON can talk to eachother, but they are not three persons. hmmm.

And you are merely handwaving away any evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived heretical notions. You deserve your ignorance.

TO understand why Jesus is our Lord is to understand that he has been appointed by JEHOVAH God our Father as our Lord. To honor Jesus is to show that same respect for the Father. We are underserved of God's kindness, hence we must prove to Jesus that we are worthy to have a relationship with him and Jesus will lead us to HIS GOD, THE FATHER, JEHOVAH.

To keep it simple: YHWH is the name of GOD. God is revealed in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully GOD, each person is fully YHWH. When YHWH speaks in the Old Testament, it could be any or all of the three persons speaking in the Trinity. I tend to think it is mostly Jesus speaking, since he is the memra, or Word of God.

Again you misapply the name of Jehovah to belong to a Trinity. Jehovah is the Fathers name. Deut 6:4 says not only that God is one, but the Jehovah is the one God. Jesus speaks of his Father's name, he applies nothing to a Trinity. Jesus never says he is Jehovah but only refers to the Father as such.

[Sparko]

Can you hear yourself? EACH PERSON can talk to eachother, but they are not three persons. hmmm.

can you hear YOURSELF?????? I never said they were "not three persons" of course they are three persons. I said they are "not three Gods"

Topherlee until you can even get the words correct you might as well stay out of the conversation. It is no wonder you don't believe in the trinity and that you are polytheistic. You don't even seem to comprehend the words and terminology being used.

[A Cup of No]

Again you misapply the name of Jehovah to belong to a Trinity. Jehovah is the Fathers name. Deut 6:4 says not only that God is one, but the Jehovah is the one God. Jesus speaks of his Father's name, he applies nothing to a Trinity. Jesus never says he is Jehovah but only refers to the Father as such.

Can you please address my post (#109), Topherlee, since you continue to say that Jesus cannot be referred to as YHWH?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparkey,

Trinitarians never say they are "separate" persons.

Lol! Wanna bet!?

They use "distinct" for a reason.

So the persons are distinct but not separate?? You like speaking from both sides of your mouth, don't you? You're bodering on modalism Sparkey. On the other hand, the Eastern type trinity of which Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocian fathers were a part of boders on tritheism . An illogical proposition will never find an equilibrium, and such is the case with the trinity doctrine. It's premises iwll always be in flux, never making sense.

No. if they can be three distinct persons on one computer. Say one was Max Headroom and one was Hal9000. Both on the same computer. They would be distinct persons. each would have a mind, and personality.

You try too hard to destroy a simple analogy and still get it wrong. In doing so you show you are either ignorant or dishonest. I am voting for ignorant. You just want arianism to be true so badly that you will ignore any contrary evidence in the bible. You can't even understand a simple analogy without messing it up.




Hewey is fully the computer in essence. All of the hardware of the computer makes up and runs Hewey. But Hewey is not Dewey or Louie. Ditto for the other two persons. Each is fully the computer. The computer is not fully each of them.






Bzzt.






Bzzt. The computer is not a fourth person. It is the essence of the three persons. The nature of them. Are you two persons Pythagoras? You have a mind in a body. does that make you two persons?

This is more of the same nonsense from you.

Look it: How do you expect me to have a logical discussion with you , if even in the realm of science fiction you cannot properly present your trinity doctrine.?? -- "example is not a perfect analogy". .. If something cannot even make sense in Narnia land, it is truly nonsense.

best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

Hi Sparkey,

2. Can you show me where "alpha and omega" are used as titles for Moses or any other man?

Can you show me where Alpha and Omega are used of Jesus? In Rev. 22:12 it is the Angel speaking . The Alpha and Omega has his reward with him. This should clue you in .

If God was not a trinity, I want to know that. I don't want to believe falsely about who God is. I do keep checking the bible and considering things you and other nontrinitarians say and I keep seeing people who don't really think about what the bible teaches but who keep trying to fit what they beleive into the bible. Instead of letting the bible teach you what the truth is, you guys already have your mind made up and force that back into the bible and use any silly rationalization to handwave away clear passages in the bible that say Jesus is God.

You, not me have your mind made up Sparkey. You refuse to use your common sense.

When I stand before God, I can, with a clear conscience tell God that I believe that Jesus is God because the bible clearly teaches that. If God were to tell me that I was wrong and the Trinity was not true, I could honestly tell him that I only went by what was clear in the bible. If he didn't want me to believe Jesus was God, he shouldn't have let it be said so many times and in so many ways in the bible.

Save this pitch for when you meat Jesus. Remember he will judge you by what sense in which you designate him Lord,Lord.

You on the other hand, and many other arians, will have to explain to God why you ignored clear passages that say Jesus is God in favor of keeping your own preconceptions alive at the expense of clear teachings in the bible.

I'm not worried about going to heaven Sparko. If God is a trinity, I never knew him .

Will you pray for God to show you the truth about his nature, even if it turns out that the trinity is true, pythagoras? And will you keep an open mind so God can reveal the truth to you whichever way it goes?

I have an open and rational mind .

BTW., you still haven't answered my question:

Is Jesus a human being like us? YES or NO?


best wishes,

[Pythagoras]

You are fighting straw man. You even don't understand how trinity is understood.

Yeah right...That's what trinitairans say when they can't show their premises to be logically based... It's a non-answer and essentially conceding defeat.

best wishes, and that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[PaulT]

Hello Pythagoras,

I see you are still at it.

Hi Sparkey,

An illogical proposition will never find an equilibrium, and such is the case with the trinity doctrine. It's premises iwll always be in flux, never making sense.

best wishes,

We’ve shown this is a false claim, yet you keep making it. I thought you were attempting to reform your ways. Please refrain from stating an out in out falsehood. If you disagree, because you can’t comprehend how it works, fine, but to continue to state a falsehood borders on dishonesty.

Regards,

Paul